Re: Io Group, et al. v. GLBT, Ltd. et al., 10-1282 MMC(DMR)

The Parties submit the following:

Defendants’ further submission on issue 3

Defendants have consulted with UK counsel, Mr. Ashley Roughton of Hogarth Chambers,Lincoln’s Inn, London, who has provided written advice.

We set out in pertinent part the key points of Mr. Roughton’s advice. References to Sections ofthe DPA have been added.

“I am a lawyer in the United Kingdom. I have been in intellectual property practice

for about 19 years. I am a member of the bar here and I also specialise in dataprotection and privacy law. I practice additionally in both intellectual property anddata protection crime. Of the three significant data protection court cases in theUnited Kingdom I have appeared in two.

The Act has eight specific principles concerned with the processing of personaldata. Personal data are, for this purpose, any information relating to an individualwhich is or is intended to be processed by means of automatic equipment. Thereis an additional requirement that those data must be private in nature though thisrequirement is untested. Processing is a very wide term - it can include merelykeeping and (importantly) sending personal data to somebody else. It is howevermuch wider than that. Put shortly any sort of dealing with computerisedinformation, including just keeping it (whether on a computer or just a printout orindeed whether a handwritten antecedent form) is covered by the Act. Thatinformation is called personal data. Those data must relate to a living individualand must relate to the privacy of that individual. Thus not all data are personal data.

The person who processes personal data is called the data controller and has certainlegal responsibilities. Some if not all of those responsibilities are aimed atprotecting the privacy of the person who is the subject of those personal data - thedata subject. The data subject has rights as against the data controller in relation tobreaches of the eight principles which I have alluded to above.

The eight principles are, in summary:- [DPA Part I of Schedule 1]

1. That the privacy of the data subject must be respected and that processingof such data must be fair (the requirement of legality).2. That processing may only take place for the purposes previously notified tothe authorities (the requirement of specificity).3. That processing must not be excessive (the requirement of adequacy).4. That those data shall be accurate and up to date (the requirement ofcompleteness).5. That once data are no longer needed they shall be discarded (the requirementof necessity).6. That the requirements of the Act shall be complied with (the requirement ofcompliance).7. That those data shall be kept securely and systems shall be designed to besecure (the requirement of security)8. That transfers of data overseas shall only take place where these principlescan be effective (the requirement of reciprocity).Hence the eight requirements are legality, specificity, adequacy, completeness,necessity, compliance, security and reciprocity.

In addition where processing is going to take place then the data subject needs tobe told about it in a particular way (this is a quid pro quo the legality requirement)and a failure to do so is deemed to be a breach of the first principle. This coupledwith the right to ask and be told about one’s personal data are known as the subjectinformation provisions. In addition this obligation to tell the data subject thatpersonal data concerning him are being processed along with the requirements ofspecificity, adequacy, completeness and necessity are called the non-disclosureprovisions.Certain disclosures are exempt from the subject information provisions or nondisclosure provisions depending upon the circumstances. For instance disclosureto the police in order to investigate crimes might strike one as being an example ofa case where effectively tipping off could be problematic. The Act containssafeguards to deal with this sort of situation. [DPA Sec 29]

Section 35 of the Act states:-

35.–(1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions wherethe disclosure is required ... by the order of a court.(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where thedisclosure is necessary–(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings(including prospective legal proceedings), or(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or 2 Joint Letter Re Discovery Issues C- 10-1282 MMC(DMR) Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page3 of 20

defending legal rights.

However there are three rather serious matters which stand in the way of thatfreedom.

…… no discovery at all may be made if it offends the requirement of

specificity. [DPA 2nd principle Part I of Schedule 1]Thus if the defendant’s notification to theauthorities includes no authorisation to transmit data overseas then to do so would offend therequirement of specificity. However the “order” of the court would (subject to what I say below)override this as the requirement of specificity is part of the non-disclosure provisions. Howeverif the court made no order then the data controller cannot just discover voluntarily. To do sowould be a criminal and administrative offence (inthe sense that both the criminal courts and the regulator can impose penal sanctions).The defendant’s registration with the authorities here cover processing for thepurposes of staff administration, advertising, marketing & public relations,accounts & records, consultancy and advisory services and administration ofmembership records. In each case the specified processing carries the disclaimer(fairly common in relation to data protection registrations here in the UnitedKingdom) that there should be no disclosures outside the European EconomicArea. I have gleaned the foregoing to looking at the publicly accessible dataprotection register here in the United Kingdom for a company called GLBTLimited of Office 44, 151 High Street, Southampton, SO14 2BT. I do not warrantthat the information concerning the status of the register is correct or accurate.Readers are invited to check for themselves.[See http://www.ico.gov.uk/ESDWebPages/search.asp insert registration number Z1730026]

Finally (and however) I do not believe that a court in the United States of Americais a court for the purposes of section 35(1) of the Act. My reason for saying this isnot because there is no avenue of redress by way of appeal or because of thequality of justice - there clearly is an avenue of appeal and there is certainly noissue concerning the quality of justice - however there is no avenue of redress byway of reference. The European Legal Order requires that all courts are subject tothe ultimate legal jurisdiction of the General Court (formerly the European Courtof Justice) so far as questions of construction and legal meaning of pieces ofEuropean Legislation are concerned. Recourse to the General Court is afundamental right here in Europe. Since the Act derives its ultimate authority fromEuropean instruments (specifically Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliamentand of the Council of the 24th of October 1995 on The protection of individualswith regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of suchdata) any issue of construction of the Act and its parent directive must be referableto the General Court. Courts in the United States of America can make noreferences to the General Court since such courts are not courts of the membersstates of the European Union (and it is only they which can make references to theGeneral Court). The word “court” in the Act means, in my view, a court which is 3 Joint Letter Re Discovery Issues C- 10-1282 MMC(DMR) Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page4 of 20

subject to the jurisdiction of the General Court.

Hence the defendant cannot make voluntary discovery as to do so would not bewithin the remit of its registration and, as I have said, operating outside the remitof one’s registration is a criminal and administrative offence unless a (European)court makes a suitable order. However the definition of court means that a court inthe United States of America cannot make an order which has the effect ofoverriding the non-disclosure provisions since it is not the court envisaged bysection 35 of the Act. Hence if the court in the United States of America were tomake an order then it would be compelling the defendant to act contrary to the lawhere and in rather a serious way. Whether (or not) the court in the United States ofAmerica wishes to do so in the US proceedings is a matter for that court.”END OF EXCERPTS FROM OPINION

In short, and absent a court order from a UK or European court, defendants can not discloseprotected data.

This is particularly the case given the sensitive nature of the data, i.e. the identity of gay menviewing on-line pornography and the inevitable risk that they will be subject to litigationthemselves. The risk is particularly grave given the litigation tactics of at least Plaintiff IOGroup, Inc.

By way of example, in IO Group, Inc. v. DOES 1-435 Case 3:10-cv-04382, the Court wastroubled by Plaintiffs misuse of the joinder and pre-service discovery rules in their attempt toallege a non-existent conspiracy against numerous alleged infringers. See Order of Judge SusanIllston of February 3rd, 2011 Case 3:10-cv-04382 document 42 at pages 9 and 10 in particular.

comprising a letter written by defendant Mayra Gonzalez to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D.Laporte and complaining about a letter written her by IO Group’s counsel. This sorry story ismore fully, and perhaps more frankly explained in an online article appearing athttp://torrentfreak.com/u-s-p2p-lawsuit-shows-signs-of-a-pirate-honeypot-110601/

Plaintiff’s counsel simply wrote a letter, styled Limited Settlement Opportunity, demanding$1875.00 from an obvious innocent infringer, [Plaintiff’s pornography was hidden, bysomebody, in a file relating to classical music] & stating how copyright law provides fordamages from $750 to $30,000 and, if willful, up to $150,000.00 in damages per infringed work,and of course neglecting to state that damages can be reduced for innocent infringers.

This is precisely the type of abuse of personal data that the DPA is designed to protect against.

Defendant’s position for unresolved issue 4.

The parties have met and conferred. As already stated, Defendants do not create many records, inlarge part due to constant threats made by lawyers in the United States.

Plaintiff’s Introductory Remarks - It is clear that Defendants will go to any length to preventdiscovery in this matter, and at this point, the Plaintiffs are comfortable stating that theDefendants have lied to this Court and that their counsel either knowingly is submitting such liesto this Court, or is willfully blind to the same. Defense counsel is withholding documents fromPlaintiffs. Defendants have destroyed evidence. Defense counsel seems to be deliberately tryingto limit the time Plaintiff has to respond to its arguments. This is the third joint letter the partieshave submitted to the Court on a Friday evening. In each case, Plaintiff’s requested early draftsfrom Defendants and on two of those occasions Defense Counsel withheld his portion of theletter until the last minute (respectively, Thursday 5/5 8:56 pm; Tues. 5/17 at 2:32 pm; andFriday 6/3, 1:56 pm). Today’s tardiness is the most extreme yet. The Court requested briefingon a complex issue of international law. Mr. Capp an English Barrister himself, found the issuesso complex he engaged a specialist in U.K privacy law to prepare his response. Mr. Capp didnot present his arguments to Plaintiff’s counsel until Friday morning and even then, he onlypresented a summary of his argument, which still contained no reference to specific law orcitations to Court opinions interpreting the law. He did not send his detailed position until 1:30in the afternoon. Mr. Capp then expects Plaintiffs’ Counsel to research and rebut these claimsand return a finalized letter for his review prior to submission to the Court today.

Plaintiffs understand that one of the goals of requiring joint letter writing is to encourage partiesto examine the issues jointly prior to submitting them to the Court. However, this goal isfrustrated when one of the parties waits until the last minute to present its arguments. Iteliminates the back and forth that would likely help narrow issues. Plaintiffs’ counsel arefrustrated that the parties are submitting this letter in a form that really is more like two lettersstuck together, than one letter jointly drafted. However, Plaintiffs’ Counsel sees no viable optionas it began writing this letter at 10:00 am on Friday morning with so little input from opposingcounsel.

U.K. Privacy Law - When Defendants’ letter finally arrived at 1:30, Plaintiff could hardlyunderstand the long delay. Defendants still offer absolutely no analysis of the law upon whichthey base their argument. Defendants simply present comments from a UK solicitor who in theend says nothing more than, “[t]he word “court” in the Act means, in my view, a court which issubject to the jurisdiction of the General Court.” With respect to the Barrister, his view, withoutcitations to Courts who agree with him, is valueless. Moreover, Mr. Ashley Roughton is notsubject to this Court’s displine if he is lying, but given the dearth of real analysis, it appears to beso void of actual conclusions, that it could not matter. Even if Defendants had provided supportfor protecting data generally from discovery in U.S. Courts, which they have not, they have notprovided any explanation as to what data they seek to protect or how the U.K. law wouldspecifically apply to the data in this case.

In light of Defendants failure provide support from the UK Courts, Plaintiffs’ position remainsthat UK law is largely irrelevant. U.S. Court after U.S. Court has held Defendants have theburden of proving the foreign law actually bars production, and these Defendants have not. In reSealed Case, 263 U.S. App. D.C. 357, 825 F.2d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1987); See also, AccessData 5 Joint Letter Re Discovery Issues C- 10-1282 MMC(DMR) Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page6 of 20

Corp. v. ALSTE Techs. GmbH, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4566, 4-5 (D. Utah Jan. 21, 2010). Moreimportantly, even if the DPA prevented the release of the documents, which it does not, thisCourt has the authority to order the documents produced. Columbia Pictures Indus. v. Bunnell,2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46364, 49-50 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2007)(“[E]ven if the [foreign dataprotection] statute applies and is read to prohibit defendants' preservation or production of the[requested records], it is well settled that foreign blocking statutes do not deprive an Americancourt of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce. Citing, Richmark Corp.v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992)).

If this Court is interested in actual analysis of the UK data protection act, the Plaintiffs should begiven the opportunity to submit Defendants limited comments to its own UK counsel in order torebut Defendant's legal position. However, if this Court reviews the case law submitted by thePlaintiffs, it will be clear that such an exercise is unnecessary under U.S. law, and it would onlyserve to obfuscate the issues, delay justice, and otherwise reward the defendants for their lack ofethics and candor.

As the Court analysis this issue further, Plaintiffs urge the Court to consider the fact thatDefendants have produced virtually no other documentary evidence in this matter. This makesthe requested documents even more important and calls into question Defendants’ motives inrefusing to produce it.

The Doctor’s Letter - The Court’s order allows no further briefing on the issue of the locationof the depositions. However, the Court requested an update on Mr. Compton’s condition in theform of a letter from his treating physician. Although Defense counsel has received the letter,he, refused to provide a copy to Plaintiff in spite of repeated requests. Mr. Capp states, “I'll filethe doctors letter as separate document as the judge has stated that there shall be no morebriefing and argument on the depositions.” Regardless of the contents of the letter, or whetherthe contents require comment form Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mr. Capp’s intentional withholding ofthe letter is inexcusable and demonstrates Mr. Capp’s lack of interest in working towardsresolution of discovery matters. In any event, the letter is only relevant to David Compton’smedical condition, and thus with or without this letter, the Court is competent to rule on JohnCompton’s deposition.

Note: Having now seen the letter which Mr. Capp filed at 5:00 on Friday afternoon, it is clearwhy he previously withheld it. The letter contains Mr. Compton’s opinion on his ability to travel- not the Doctor’s opinion. Moreover, the Compton’s further call their veracity into question byadopting a new excuse (general travel anxiety) as the old excuse (kidney stones) fades away.

Unresolved Issue Number 3 - The fact that Defendants have never objected to ProductionRequests 7, 9, and 11, highlights the fact that those documents are indeed relevant. Defendantshave never described in a privilege log or anywhere else the documents in their possession thatare responsive to the requests. With no such description forthcoming, Plaintiff’s efforts todiscuss the relevancy of actual documents will be limited. Plaintiffs focus on the relevancy ofthe request.

Through Request Number 7, Plaintiff’s seek any billing records related to the websitesDefendants operate. Primarily these documents are relevant in proving that Defendants receiveda direct financial benefit from the infringing activity - part of the analysis for vicarious liabilityand for Defendants’ eligibility for the safe harbor provisions set forth at 17 USC 512 (c)(1)(B).Further, Defendants have only produced a limited number of documents (See the discussion setforth at Unresolved Issue Number 4 below). The documents are relevant to Plaintiffs attempt tounderstand the scope of Defendants’ enterprises. Defendants have repeatedly denied personaljurisdiction in this Court and have boldly asserted that they will resist collection on any judgmentPlaintiffs obtain. Thus, the location of its customers, especially those in the United States isrelevant. Since Defendants have not produced any meaningful documents, Plaintiffs must andwill seek discovery from a number of Defendants’ customers, particularly those in the UnitedStates, to discover what type of communications Defendants have had with their customers,particularly communications regarding issues of copyright infringement, a repeat infringerpolicy, and billing/financial benefit. Because, a large number of on line users provide boguspersonal information, particularly in the realm of adult websites, Plaintiff’s require informationthat customers cannot fake. Because Defendants are unable to make money unless billingrecords are accurate, these are the most likely records actually to lead to discoverable evidenceregarding Defendants customers.

In order to be eligible for the safe harbor provisions of 17 USC 512, Defendants must have hadin place a repeat infringer policy. Through Request Number 9, Plaintiffs seek any documentsshowing that Defendants have terminated services for members who violated their repeatinfringer policy. This request would include e-mails sent to repeat infringers terminating theirservice – which Defendants deny having. However, the most reliable indicator of whetherDefendants continued to benefit from retaining a repeat infringer as a customer is to examine thebilling records. Again, because it is easy to provide fake information in other contexts, thebilling records become exceedingly important. In the absence of any other records, thedocuments responsive to this request become more critical as these records are apparently theonly records Defendants have not destroyed.

By Request Number 11, Plaintiffs demanded documents relating to Defendants repeat infringerpolicy. Defendants replied that responsive documents exist that list repeat infringers whoDefendants canceled. However, Defendants refuse to provide those documents claiming UK andEC privacy laws protect them from disclosure. These documents are relevant for the samereasons describe in Requests Numbers 7 and 9. To the extent that responsive records containinformation specific and private to an individual, such information is necessary to ensure thatDefendants do not simply provide a list of made up names or accounts. Receiving individualizedverifiable information is the only way to establish that Defendants’ repeat infringer policy wasreal.

not going to receive any of the requested information. Plaintiff’s counsel pressed further, butDefense Counsel was unable to voice any legitimate reason for not implementing the proposedstipulated order - in spite of the fact that Defendants’ made production of documents inresponses to certain discovery requests contingent upon entry of a protective order. See, JointLetter, Docket No. 52, Page 9, ¶3.

Issue Number Four deals with two issues. The first is Defendant’s promise to deliver responsivedocuments, which they have failed to deliver. Parties attach hereto as a permitted exhibit a copyof Plaintiff’s Document Requests and GLBT’s responses. (Plaintiff’s served identical documentrequests on Defendant Mash and New, Ltd. requesting documents relating to the websitesjerkyourtube.com and gayforit.com and request identical relief for those requests.) The relevantdocument requests include, Request No. 27, 29, 30, 31, and 32. During the meet and confer Mr.Capp again promised to produce documents but agreed to no production date. Plaintiffs seek anorder compelling Defendants to produce all documents responsive to these requests within sevendays of the Court Order.

The second issue within Issue Number Four is that Defendants unrealistically claim to have noresponsive documents to certain requests. With regard to Request for Productions 1, 4, and 12Defendants have replied that they have no responsive documents.

Request 1 demands all documents that refer to Plaintiffs; Request 4 demands all documents thatrefer to Defendants’ websites; and Request 12 demands all documents that refer to cease anddesist letters or take down notices Defendants received in relation to the websites they operate.Defendants claim they have no documents responsive to these requests. Request Number 2seeks documents that reference Defendants’ websites. Defendants respond that the onlyresponsive documents they have are the websites themselves viewable by the public.

Given the broadness of these requests, Plaintiff finds Defendants claim simply unbelievable. Asfar as Plaintiffs are aware, the only business the Defendants engage in is the operation of thethree websites at issue in this litigation. An important element of the operation of these websites,as evidenced by Defendant’s own statements, is the removal of content at the request ofcopyright holders, including Plaintiffs. The only way Defendants could truthfully claim to haveno records responsive to these requests is if Defendants immediately delete everycorrespondence they send or receive – including correspondence and documents sent or receivedsince Plaintiffs put them on notice that this litigation was likely. Defendants have numerousvenders, with whom they carry on business including credit card processors, hosting companies,advertisers, etc. It would be literally impossible to operate a business without any documents asDefendants expect Plaintiffs and the Court to believe.

Defendants are under a duty to preserve evidence that might be reasonably relevant to thelitigation. Moreover, they are aware of this duty and have been so since at least as early asAugust 12, 2008 when Plaintiff Io Group, Inc. sent them notice of their duty to preserve. On itsface, Defendant’s explanation of why they do not maintain records (i.e. because of threats oflitigation by U.S. attorneys) admits a defiant disregard for their duty to preserve evidence.

Defendants have admitted to the intentional destruction of documents relevant to this litigation,thus discovery sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff’s currently seek an order from the Courtwarning Defendants to produce all responsive documents or risk sanctions includingpresumptions that any destroyed evidence contained culpatory evidence.

Plaintiffs’ Closing Remarks - Defense counsel has violated the Court’s page and exhibitlimitation by incorporating large amounts of material by reference. Moreover, Defense Counselin a manner unbefitting a member of the bar, attacks Plaintiff’s Counsel by referencing an articleappearing on torrent freak - a blog dedicated to online piracy. The article sets forth a myriad oflies and unsubstantiated accusations that Mr. Capp presumably is unwilling to make himself.Nonetheless, Mr. Capp introduces the highly prejudicial and completely non-probativestatements in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiffs request that the Court ignorethis hearsay evidence.

4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.1:

5 None. REQUEST NO.2 6 Produce all DOCUMENTS in DEFENDANT’S possession that reference Gayforit.com website. 7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.2: 8 All pages of the website located at www.gayforit.com 9 REQUEST NO.3:10 Produce all DOCUMENTS in DEFENDANT’S possession that reference the ownership interests11 of any person in Gayforit.com.12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.3:13 These will be produced in the immediate future.

14

15 REQUEST NO.4 Produce all DOCUMENTS referencing allegations of copyright infringement occurring on16 gayforit.com, including but not limited DMCA notices of infringement; correspondence (email17 or other communications) regarding infringements, or mailed to GLBT’s physical address;18 and/or other intellectual property complaints directed to GLBT in any form whatsoever.19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.4:20 None.21 REQUEST NO.522 Produce any documents that YOU intend to rely upon in this Action.23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.5:24 All pages of the websites located at www.gayforit.com, www.itsallgay.com and/or

25 www.jerkyourtube.com websites. Document files comprising the COPCMS filtering system used by Defendant and which will be produced when available in usable form. Exhibit A hereto26 and any documents that a UK or other European court(s) authorize to be produced. Also various27 videos of Plaintiffs in their custody possession and control.28

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-2- Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page12 of 20

3 REQUEST NO.6:

4 Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show your corporate organization.

5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.6: These will be produced in the immediate future. 6

7 REQUEST NO.7: 8 Produce all billing files related to Gayforit.com, including but not limited records of billing 9 statements, the address and name of the recipient’s mailing address, billing logs and records of10 payments, including but not limited to the credit card or banking information on file and the11 individual’s name and address associated with the account.12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.7:13 All non privileged documents, see attached log, will be produced for inspection provided any

14 production does not violate UK and European data protection legislation and/or the privacy

15 rights of third parties. Defendants will require European and/UK court orders to produce. REQUEST NO.8:16 Produce all DOCUMENTS that YOU have provided to any expert witness or potential witness in17 regard to this action.18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.8:19 None at this time.20 REQUEST NO.9:21 Produce DOCUMENTS showing that YOU have terminated services for members who violated22 YOUR repeat copyright infringement policy (or any equivalent policy).23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.9:24 All non privileged documents, see attached log, will be produced for inspection provided any

25 production does not violate UK and European data protection legislation and/or the privacy rights of third parties. Defendants will require European and/UK court orders to produce.26 REQUEST NO. 1027 All DOCUMENTS that constitute, describe, refer to, or relate to reports identifying the amount28 of traffic, hits, and /or visits to Gayforit.com.

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-3- Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page13 of 20

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.10:

2 None. 3 REQUEST NO. 11

4 All DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to GLBT’s policies regarding repeat

5 infringers, including all original, draft, subsequent, or revised versions of such DOCUMENTS. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.11: 6 The document located at www.gayforit.com/terms and documents listing repeat infringers who 7 have been canceled and that a UK or other European court(s) authorize to be produced. 8

9 REQUEST NO. 1210 All DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to cease and desist letters or DMCA take11 down notices requesting that GLBT remove or block access to material appearing on12 Gayforit.com.13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.12:14 None.

15 REQUEST NO. 13: All DOCUMENTS with reference to written policies, procedures and guidelines related to16 GLBT’s computers or computer systems including, without limitation, back up schedules and17 procedures, electronic retention and preservation schedules, and file naming conventions.18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.13:19 None.20 REQUEST NO. 14:21 Produce all DOCUMENTS required to be identified by DEFENDANT’s in its initial disclosures22 under Fed. Rule Civ. Pro 26.23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.14:24 All documents identified and produced pursuant to these requests.

25 REQUEST NO. 15:26 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to reports identifying the amount of27 daily traffic, hits, and/or visits to the WEBSITE[S] since YOU began operating the28 WEBSITE[S].

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-4- Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page14 of 20

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.15:

2 None. 3

4 REQUEST NO. 16:

5 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to YOUR procedures for approving or rejecting content submitted to the website[s] for publication by and through the WEBSITE[S], 6 including all original, draft, subsequent, or revised versions of such DOCUMENTS. 7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.16: 8 The webpages located at: 9 http://www.gayforit.com/terms10 http://www.gayforit.com/advertise11 REQUEST NO. 17:12 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to YOUR procedures for processing13 and handling content once submitted to the website[s] for publication by and through the

14 WEBSITE[S].

15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.17: The webpages located at http://www.gayforit.com/terms16

17 REQUEST NO. 18:18 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to press releases distributed by or on19 behalf of YOU or the WEBSITE[S].20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.18:21 None.22 REQUEST NO. 19:23 Produce all DOCUMENTS that discuss if or how 18 USC Sec. 2257 and implementing24 regulations at 28 CFR 75.1 et seq. relate to YOUR operation of the WEBSITE[S].

25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.19: None.26

27 REQUEST NO. 20:28

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-5- Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page15 of 20

1 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute refer to or relate to YOUR policies for preventing 2 child pornography from being published by and through the WEBSITE[S]. 3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.20:

4 None.

5 REQUEST NO. 21: Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to YOUR polices for obtaining proof 6 that individuals appearing in explicit material submitted for publication by and through the 7 WEBSITE[S]. were over eighteen years of age at the time the material was produced. 8 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.21: 9 None.10 REQUEST NO. 22:11 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to YOUR policies for ensuring that12 any sexually explicit material transmitted by and through the WEBSITE[S] was properly labeled13 with information as to where the producer of such content maintained records proving the

14 individuals appearing in the material were over eighteen years of age at the time the material was

15 produced. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.22:16 None.17 REQUEST NO. 23:18 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute refer to or relate to YOUR policies for obtaining proof19 that individuals submitting material for publication by and through the WEBSITE[S] are20 authorized to do so.21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 23.22 None.23 REQUEST NO. 24:24 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute refer to or relate to YOUR ability to discover the true25 identity of individuals who submit content for publication by and through the WEBSITE[S].26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 24.27 None.28 REQUEST NO. 25:

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-6- Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page16 of 20

1 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to YOUR policies regarding 2 identifying and removing material from the WEBSITE[S] that has not been authorized for such 3 use by the copyright holder, and including all original, draft, subsequent, or revised versions of 4 such DOCUMENTS. 5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 25. 6 The webpages located at http://www.gayforit.com/terms 7 http://www.gayforit.com/advertise 8 REQUEST NO. 26: 9 Produce electronic copies, in a readily viewable format, of all files removed or blocked from the

10 WEBSITE[S] at the request of Plaintiffs.

11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 26.

12 No such documents exist.

13 REQUEST NO. 27:

14 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to YOUR ability to monetize the15 WEBSITE[S] including, without limitation, through advertising revenue, video on demand fee

16 sharing, subscriptions, or any other means.

17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 27.

18 All non privileged documents, see attached log, will be produced for inspection provided any

19 production does not violate UK and European data protection legislation and/or the privacy20 rights of third parties. Defendants will require European and/UK court orders to produce.21 REQUEST NO. 28:22 Produce all DOCUMENTS explaining how the WEBSITE[S] and each of their [its] features

23 operates or was intended to operate, including without limitation, such DOCUMENTS given to

24 employees or contractors tasked with designing, programming or constructing the WESBITE[S].

25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 28.

26 None.

27 REQUEST NO. 29:

28 Produce all DOCUMENTS identifying computers, equipment, and software used in conjunction with the operation of the WEBSITE[S}. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-7- Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page17 of 20

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 29.

2 None-other than the COPCMS system which will be produced when in usable form. 3 REQUEST NO. 30: 4 Produce all DOCUMENTS relating to any technology YOU use for detecting infringement on 5 the WEBSITE[S], including without limitation, those describing policies and procedures. 6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 30 7 None-other than the COPCMS system which will be produced when in usable form. 8

9 REQUEST NO. 31:10 Produce all DOCUMENTS relating to any technology YOU ever purchased, developed, or11 implemented that uses digital fingerprinting technology including without limitation procedures12 for implementing such technologies and underlying source code for such technology.13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 3114 None-other than the COPCMS system which will be produced when in usable form.15

16 REQUEST NO. 32:17 Produce all DOCUMENTS relating to or referencing the development, purchase, or18 implementation of digital fingerprinting technology in connection with the operation of the19 WEBSITE[S].20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 3221

22 None-other than the COPCMS system which will be produced when in usable form.

23 REQUEST NO. 33:24 Produce all DOCUMENTS that refer to or relate to YOUR policy of awarding free subscriptions25 to individuals who provide video files to the WESBITE[S], including without limitation , 1)26 communications to or from individuals to whom YOU provided or to whom you denied a free27 subscription under the policy; and 2) descriptions of what type of content made one eligible for a28 free subscription.

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-8- Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page18 of 20

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 33

See website located at www.gayforit.com otherwise none. System automatically upgrades users 2 for 7 days when they upload a video. 3

4 REQUEST NO. 34:

5 Produce all DOCUMENTS describing how video files are indexed on the WEBSITE[S]. 6 including without limitation relevant source code. 7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 34 8 All pages of the websites located at www.gayforit.com, www.itsallgay.com and/or 9 www.jerkyourtube.com10

11 REQUEST NO. 35:12 Produce all DOCUMENTS showing income or revenue YOU earned by the operation of the13 WEBSITE[S].14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 3515 All non privileged documents, see attached log, will be produced for inspection provided any16 production does not violate UK and European data protection legislation and/or the privacy17 rights of third parties. Defendants will require European or UK court order to produce. Otherwise18 see Accounts for GBLT attached as Exhibit A.19

20 REQUEST NO. 36:21 Produce any DOCUMENTS that constitute, describe, refer to or relate to any negotiations to sell22 or trade user traffic form the WEBSITE[S] to any other website, company or other third party.23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 3624

25 No such documents exist.

26 REQUEST NO. 37:

27 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, describe , refer to or relate to the effectiveness or28 feasibility of electronic filtering for particular types of files in order to keep such files off of the WEBSITE[S]. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-9- Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page19 of 20

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 37

2 None-other than the COPCMS system which will be produced when in usable form. 3